California’s newly amended infanticide bill is introduced in the Senate

Assembly Bill 2223 by Congresswoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), is an abortion bill mislabeled “Reproductive Health,” which actually seeks to legalize infanticide to expand murder of infants beyond the time of birth until weeks after, the Globe reported.

Congresswoman Wicks insisted at a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in April that AB 2223 did not support infanticide and was only labeled as such due to the airing of misinformation by those who oppose the bill. Wicks said while other states are taking increasingly aggressive measures to limit abortions, California continues to protect reproductive rights. Wicks says “women should not be sued for pregnancy loss.”

This bill fits perfectly with Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats’ plan to promote abortion tourism, inviting tourists to visit California and get abortions if their own state imposes restrictions on abortion. abortion.

Governor Newsom and the state legislature are offering taxpayer funds to help out-of-state residents get abortions, as well as legalize infanticide through recently amended legislation. They must therefore ensure that nothing stands in the way of abortion for everyone, at any time during pregnancy.

“Infanticide” is defined as follows:

  1. The act of killing a child.
  2. The practice of killing newborns.
  3. One who kills a child.

AB 2223 amended

AB 2223, passed the House Appropriations Committee in May after approving an amendment that largely removed verbiage decriminalizing infanticide, the California Family Council reported. “Lawmakers made the switch after thousands of life advocates came to Sacramento on April 19 to oppose the bill.”

“The amendment upheld concerns raised by the California Family Council about the section that decriminalizes ‘perinatal death.’ which AB 2223 would decriminalize the killing of newborns up to 30 days after birth.

Is AB 2223 still a threat to unborn children and newborns?

The amendment amends the bill to read as follows: “perinatal death due to causes occurring in utero”.

“Pregnancy loss” is how Wicks and his followers describe a fetal or infant death, even if the mother caused the death by “self-administering an abortion,” and even after the baby is born.

Assembly Bill 2223 has passed the Assembly and is now heading to the Senate.

AB 2223 seeks to amend Section 187 of the Penal Code, which defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with premeditation.” The reference to “a fetus” was added in 1970 when the California Legislature amended Section 187. Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an alert in January stating that he “reiterates that the Legislature had no intention to include a pregnant person’s own actions that could result in a miscarriage. or stillborn.

Despite its interpretation and proclamation, the Attorney General cannot amend the Penal Code without the passage of Congresswoman Wicks’ AB 2223.

Even more concerning, according to AB 2223, law enforcement will be prevented from investigating an infant death. The bill’s analysis states, “The bill also limits the duties of coroners to be consistent with laws that protect pregnant persons from civil liability and criminal prosecution for the death of their unborn fetus.”

“So if a coroner investigates the body of the ‘stillborn’ baby and finds that the baby was not stillborn, but was born breathing and died of asphyxiation, that evidence cannot be used to prosecute anyone for infanticide,” says the California Family Council. .

How will law enforcement determine exactly whether the death was from in utero or after causes, without an investigation? Answer: They cannot. “The bill still decriminalizes clandestine abortions by removing penalties for anyone who violates abortion health and safety standards for any reason while aborting a woman during all nine months of her pregnancy. , up to the time of birth,” the Californian family said. said the Council.

Another complication is the language used in the bill.

Americans United for Life writes that “’Perinatal’ is not defined in this bill, leading critics to decry AB 2223 as infanticide. Elsewhere in California law, “perinatal care” is defined as “the provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and the postpartum and neonatal periods.” . . . In the absence of a definition in the bill, it seems that the intention of this legislation is to legalize child abandonment (or worse) in the first weeks after birth. If that is not the intention of the bill’s sponsors, they should amend the bill to clarify that California’s official policy is not state-sanctioned infanticide.

According to the bill’s author, Congresswoman Buffy Wicks, the bill is about “reproductive justice, criminalization of pregnancy, reproductive freedom and pregnancy loss.”

“A critical part of achieving reproductive justice for Californians is making it clear that no one will be investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated for their actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes.

The criminalization of pregnancy is a widespread national problem, and California is not exempt from this problem. Despite a clear law that terminating a pregnancy or losing a pregnancy is not a crime, prosecutors in this state have charged people with homicide for pregnancy loss.

AB 2223 protects reproductive freedom and decision-making by ensuring that no one in the State of California will be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy or experiencing pregnancy loss. As other anti-abortion states attempt to impose criminal or civil penalties on people who help others obtain abortions, California must strengthen existing state protections against criminalization and continuation of abortion and pregnancy outcomes.

The California Family Council best summarizes the bill and amendment:

“Even with the new amendment limiting the meaning of ‘perinatal death,’ AB 2223 will still bar prosecution of a mother or caregiver for causing the death of her born or unborn child if the child died as a result of injuries sustained in the womb.. This would include injuries from a botched abortion, illegal drugs such as methamphetamine or heroin, or even a beating by a boyfriend, if the woman refuses to press charges.

Here’s how Assembly members voted on AB 2223:

Yes on AB 2223 – Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Mia Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Cooper, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Haney, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Petrie-Norris, Alter, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Pierre , Ting, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Rendon.

No on AB 2223 – Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Cooley, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Davies, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Nguyen, Patterson, Seyarto, Smith, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron.

No votes recordedBerman, Daly, Gray, Grayson, McCarty, O’Donnell, Ramos, Salas, Villapudua.

The Globe will follow AB 2223 to the Senate and report.

Printable, PDF and email version

Comments are closed.